Do Employers Have to Be Certified to Give a Breathalyzer Test?

[PKendall317]

This happened to a good friend of mine recently, who was sent home for being above the legal alcohol limit after a supervisor gave him a breathalyzer test on a cheap looking handheld breathalyzer that the company bought off the internet.

I know that in most places, the police are required to undergo some form of training or certification to administer a breathalyzer test. Does this same standard apply to employers who give breathalyzer tests to employees?

 

[88GT]

This happened to a good friend of mine recently, who was sent home for being above the legal alcohol limit after a supervisor gave him a breathalyzer test on a cheap looking handheld breathalyzer that the company bought off the internet.

I know that in most places, the police are required to undergo some form of training or certification to administer a breathalyzer test. Does this same standard apply to employers who give breathalyzer tests to employees?

It's not for criminal prosecution. Standardization/certification is an attempt to make the test administered by the same people trying to put you in jail just a little more fair.

I'd say your friend is screwed unless he was stone cold sober. Or he can prove the testing apparatus was flawed and any action taken against him based on the results is to his detriment (a la termination). Might be a good time to remind your very good friend that drinking on the job is generally frowned upon.

 

[PKendall317]

It's not for criminal prosecution. Standardization/certification is an attempt to make the test administered by the same people trying to put you in jail just a little more fair.

I'd say your friend is screwed unless he was stone cold sober. Or he can prove the testing apparatus was flawed and any action taken against him based on the results is to his detriment (a la termination). Might be a good time to remind your very good friend that drinking on the job is generally frowned upon.

Thank you, I was afraid that was the response I get. Personally I have problems with our testing policy but I won't go into that on here.

 

[SSGSAD]

Thank you, I was afraid that was the response I get. Personally I have problems with our testing policy but I won't go into that on here.

Remember, this is Indiana, and the employers, can do just about anything, they want to..... Without violating the law..... Hire at will, fire at will .....

 

[88GT]

Remember, this is Indiana, and the employers, can do just about anything, they want to..... Without violating the law..... Hire at will, fire at will .....

It's also important to note that employers don't have the legal authority to compel anybody to do anything. But employees should know that refusal/non-compliance can result in termination.

 

[PKendall317]

Remember, this is Indiana, and the employers, can do just about anything, they want to..... Without violating the law..... Hire at will, fire at will .....

Please don't remind me

 

[snorko]

Did they make him drive home?

 

[PKendall317]

Did they make him drive home?

Hell no. A co-worker drove him home.

 

[Mark-DuCo]

Personally, and this is comping from a supervisor stand point, if any of my workers showed up intoxicated and they tested positive, even with a cheap tester, they would be fired on the spot. The last thing a company needs is someone under the influence to get hurt and then have to deal with OSHA.

 

[PKendall317]

Personally, and this is comping from a supervisor stand point, if any of my workers showed up intoxicated and they tested positive, even with a cheap tester, they would be fired on the spot. The last thing a company needs is someone under the influence to get hurt and then have to deal with OSHA.

Agreed. I was just wondering if private employers had to undergo the same qualifications as a police officer to administer the test.

 

[Double T]

Agreed. I was just wondering if private employers had to undergo the same qualifications as a police officer to administer the test.

Any time someone tests positive for anything in there system, they are typically put on leave until a secondary test can confirm the level of intoxication or if the pee test was a false positive.

For alcohol, the only other alternative is a blood test; so the company would have to pay to send the guy out for bloodwork.

I have seen someone test positive for meth and PCP. The **** tests were wrong, bloodwork confirmed the person was clean.

Again, it's better to suspend someone until a secondary test is done. But then also, a secondary test is not always needed.

 

[chef larry]

Remember, this is Indiana, and the employers, can do just about anything, they want to..... Without violating the law..... Hire at will, fire at will .....

Their ball game, their ball.

 

[Denny347]

This happened to a good friend of mine recently, who was sent home for being above the legal alcohol limit after a supervisor gave him a breathalyzer test on a cheap looking handheld breathalyzer that the company bought off the internet.

I know that in most places, the police are required to undergo some form of training or certification to administer a breathalyzer test. Does this same standard apply to employers who give breathalyzer tests to employees?

Remember, PBT (portable breath test) results are not admissible in court. You are thinking of a certified breath test which is the giant desk version that one must be trained to use. THOSE results are admissible.

 

[wolfman]

From the employers side, here is how it goes here.
Cheep breath test = positive
Supervisor says: You tested positive, if you feel the results are not correct, you may request a blood draw, "do you want a blood draw?"
Employee: No = Fired on the spot, Yes = Employer pd blood draw.

 

[SideArmed]

So much for the two martini lunch, huh?

 

[Libertarian01]

Remember, this is Indiana, and the employers, can do just about anything, they want to..... Without violating the law..... Hire at will, fire at will .....

To All,

I don't mean to but...

NOT TRUE, NOT TRUE, NOT TRUE!

While Indiana does not protect in many cases ALL FEDERAL LAWS still apply.

Was your friend singled out?

Were any other employee's EVER given this treatment?

There is so much hearsay garbage about Indiana law. As if Indiana doesn't have a law against treason so you can commit treason in Indiana and get away with it... (an analogy here)

From the 15th Annual Beckman Lawson Employment Law Forum, Page #9:

"In today's legal environment, you must be able to show that you took a rational, systematic approach to addressing an employee problem. It's not good enough to "build a file on an employee." You must demonstrate, with credible documentation, that you made a sincere effort to help the employee resolve the problem.

Progressive discipline is normally a multiple step system that courts, administrative agencies, juries an arbitrators, expect supervisors to follow. The steps usually include: oral warning, written warning, a last step option, and termination. When you use progressive discipline, you're demonstrating that you are making a reasonable effort to create an opportunity for the employee to succeed."

Beckman Lawson is a well respected law firm here in Fort Wayne. They are also known for being generally anti union, so this information is presented to avoid litigation for their potential clients.

The "at will" in Indiana just means the State of Indiana has no special protections. It does NOT mean that Federal Laws and Federal Court precedents mystically vanish inside our fair borders.

It is way too often that people see someone get away with something and presume it is OK because someone got away with it, when that just isn't so.

Your friend could have an issue with discrimination. I am a 47 year old white male who is in average to below average health. I am heterosexual. I am Lutheran. Am I a protected class?

You betcha! Anyone over 40 is considered protected. Did you know that?

Note I am not advocating that this is right or wrong! There are way too many laws that negatively impact businesses. However, those laws do exist and I will always try to point out that "At Will" is not "Carte Blanche" for firing at a whim, or even for a good reason if proper procedures were not followed.

Regards,

Doug

 

[bobbittle]

To All,

I don't mean to but...

NOT TRUE, NOT TRUE, NOT TRUE!

While Indiana does not protect in many cases ALL FEDERAL LAWS still apply.

Was your friend singled out?

Were any other employee's EVER given this treatment?

There is so much hearsay garbage about Indiana law. As if Indiana doesn't have a law against treason so you can commit treason in Indiana and get away with it... (an analogy here)

From the 15th Annual Beckman Lawson Employment Law Forum, Page #9:

"In today's legal environment, you must be able to show that you took a rational, systematic approach to addressing an employee problem. It's not good enough to "build a file on an employee." You must demonstrate, with credible documentation, that you made a sincere effort to help the employee resolve the problem.

Progressive discipline is normally a multiple step system that courts, administrative agencies, juries an arbitrators, expect supervisors to follow. The steps usually include: oral warning, written warning, a last step option, and termination. When you use progressive discipline, you're demonstrating that you are making a reasonable effort to create an opportunity for the employee to succeed."

Beckman Lawson is a well respected law firm here in Fort Wayne. They are also known for being generally anti union, so this information is presented to avoid litigation for their potential clients.

The "at will" in Indiana just means the State of Indiana has no special protections. It does NOT mean that Federal Laws and Federal Court precedents mystically vanish inside our fair borders.

It is way too often that people see someone get away with something and presume it is OK because someone got away with it, when that just isn't so.

Your friend could have an issue with discrimination. I am a 47 year old white male who is in average to below average health. I am heterosexual. I am Lutheran. Am I a protected class?

You betcha! Anyone over 40 is considered protected. Did you know that?

Note I am not advocating that this is right or wrong! There are way too many laws that negatively impact businesses. However, those laws do exist and I will always try to point out that "At Will" is not "Carte Blanche" for firing at a whim, or even for a good reason if proper procedures were not followed.

Regards,

Doug

If you show up to work drunk off your ass, get fired, and sue because you were "discriminated against," you've got issues.

 

[Libertarian01]

If you show up to work drunk off your ass, get fired, and sue because you were "discriminated against," you've got issues.

Bobbittle,

I am not saying an employee cannot be fired for cause.

All I will always try to point out is that it is NOT simply "black & white" as some folks like to believe it is.

Regards,

Doug

 

[MikeDVB]

I'm going to jump in and say this ... Does it matter? Should the person have been drinking on the job/before the job?

I fired an employee once for drinking on the job - for the longest time my boss (previous job) wouldn't let me because I could not 'prove it'. Eventually my boss' boss came in one day and told me to fire him or he would let both of us go.

I explained that I had been trying to get rid of him for a while, but my boss wouldn't let me. He was a danger to himself and others - had injured himself numerous times but always refused treatment [I wonder why?].

If your employer has a policy against drinking on the job the solution is simple, don't drink on the jobor show up intoxicated.

 

[Glockowner]

Not really any formal training to run a portable breath test.


The formal training is for the BAC Datamaster, which is the instrument that produces results that are admissible as evidence.

Those cheap Internet breathalyzers aren't very accurate, but they do differentiate between positive and negative alcohol results very well.